Cookham Discussion Board
September 21, 2018, 09:56:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
20 September 2018 - The Boxford Mosaic

20 September 2018 - Cookham Book Club

22 September 2018 - Live@the Church

25 September 2018 - Cookham Medical Centre Closed for Training - 12.30-6.30pm

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Whyteladyes Green Belt Outline Planning Application - Again!!  (Read 23439 times)
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2015, 08:55:20 PM »

May I add . . .

These Farmers/Developers, really should be hanging there heads in shame, because . . they should be preserving the character of the area, rather than over developing it. It is really sad that farms and the buildings disappear for bog standard cheap housing.

By not seeing crops, cows, horses in the Cookhams, then the "Cookhams" blend into furze Platt / Maidenhead, thus making the village become "Siamese Twinned' with the town.

In other words, Cookham loses its "appeal" as an area to live. AND it loses its Countryside status.

The Farmers, should take responsibility and think how privileged they are/ have been, in owning such land.

Once this land had been built on, its sadly gone forever.

Cllrs should take this into consideration, and think about the impact it has Cookham. .such as schools, doctors and traffic.

Logged
simmie
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2015, 08:10:26 AM »

Don't get me wrong - I would prefer to live surrounded by open countryside but I acknowledge that housing is a national / regional priority (I would like my children to be able to afford to live in the area).  The debate should be on where & how we house our country rather than simply ignoring the pressures.  Whyteladyes might be the wrong place to build but we have a responsibility (& RBWM has a legal obligation) to find somewhere appropriate, within the community.   

JJF - you seem to make several points about the quality of build and about local infrastructure, both of which I agree with.  However if properly planned and accounted for neither should preclude new housing. 
Logged
forum poster
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2015, 08:17:10 AM »

For the current applications I am afraid it is ALL about the money and nothing else. Nothing altruistic here. There are such vast profits to be made in house building these days, especially in the the South East, that every Tom (pun intended) Dick and Harry will sell off anything they can to get developments built. Be they "executive" as in Cookham Dean or more "affordable" ( yeah right!) in Cookham Rise. Dilute an area enough with over development and it will no longer be desirable but they don't care as they are busy counting their profits. Such a shame when the general populous feel so powerless to preserve their heritage and our leaders just want quick fixes for issues they mainly were responsible for. Pretty sure it has been like this since the year dot, those who have, have and those that don't...
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2015, 07:34:22 PM »

May be a good idea to watch this land owner even closer. Seems to of been a new farm created in Cookham called 'Switchback Farm' - when in fact, this area is all part of Cannon Court Farm, which has planning permission for residential.

Why develop one farm, yet create another. Does not make any sense, unless its all a ploy for future housing?

Seeing all the road works going in, and the pig track (Bridle Way 19) now a solid driveway, this is possibly  plan B after Whyteladys Lane development???

« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 07:38:38 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 279


« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2015, 08:47:57 PM »

It IS a ploy by the land owner, JJF ... to confuse people into not knowing his intentions!
Close down one farm, create another ... build a barn here and there ... erect field shelters ...
you know ... keep the populace guessing!

But yeah, building plans top the agenda in the creation of his empire ... trust me.
Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2015, 09:25:32 AM »

Anyone else get a letter from Geoffrey Copas, trying to convince them why their "affordable housing" plan is such a great idea?
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2015, 10:45:51 AM »

Believe he only sent them out to the objectors! . .

Is he allowed to take peoples names and addresses and contact them in this way? Data protection?
Logged
wannabe
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2015, 11:26:55 AM »

Names and addresses are on the council website for objectors.
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 279


« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2015, 12:49:46 PM »

Frankly there ought to be a Law which strictly prohibits Applicants using the
Council website to extract names and addresses in order for them to illegally solicit
or enter into any direct and uninvited correspondence whatsoever with the third party (viz., the objector).

I am utterly surprised that this ruling is not in place - especially with all the concern about
data protection etc etc., and if I received a letter from said farmer/applicant, I know I'd be contacting
my solicitor immediately - as, IMO, the correspondence could be construed as a form of harassment,
irrespective of how sweetly the incoming letter is couched or toned.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 12:59:22 PM by Watchman » Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2015, 01:22:44 PM »

I think its a form of harassment!
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2015, 04:54:01 PM »

Its not mandatory to provide an address when raising an objection to a planning application ....  so I probably wont disclose mine in future! Both telephone numbers and EMail addresses aren't disclosed anyway.
Logged
Merriman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 65


« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2015, 06:15:27 PM »

Whenever I have objected I have been told by planning that I have to give my name and address?
Logged
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2015, 08:51:55 AM »

Ive recently entered an objection on line and I didnt need give my address ..... when you click on the ? by the entry fields it does state that either an Email address or a telephone number is required but address is optional. Maybe its different if you object by post ?
Logged
grumpyoldgit
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 54


« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2015, 10:33:41 PM »

What's the problem here? If you wish to make your objections known publicly, you should expect your identity to be available to the general public - the proposers, whose identity is known, are making a public application, and you are making a public objection. Otherwise, you risk being seen to have something to hide, which will surely devalue the weight of your objection.
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2015, 05:38:43 AM »

I think the problem is, most of us live so close to this farmers properties, that there is a real concern of getting 'pay-back' for objecting. No one wants to wake up to next years turkeys.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!